2012+Honig+v.+Doe

Court Case 6: Special Education Law Patrick Stieve and Lindsey Little

**HONIG, CALIFORNIA SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION** **v.** **DOE ET AL.** **Supreme Court of United States.** **Argued November 9, 1987 Decided January 20, 1988** The plaintiff, Honig, argues on behalf of the Education of the Handicap Act enacts that all children have the right to free appropriate public education (FAPE). The precedent was set in the case, Brown V. Board of Education. The issue with Brown was that children with disabilities were not receiving proper and equal education. One in every eight children were being excluded from school because of their disabilities. The question at hand is should the state have to “provide educational services directly to a disabled child when the local agency fails to do so?” The Supreme Court ruled that schools cannot lawfully suspend or expel students with disabilities without violating the students’ rights under FAPE. They did however state those students with disabilities would be subject to schools disciplinary codes. In the event that suspension and/or expulsion are necessary; it must be a matter that the behavior is endangering the student or other students to be legally justified. It is the law for schools to follow IDEA, FAPE, and ADA regulations. These are the laws that have brought about inclusion classroom settings. The settings like these force our general education teachers to become experts at differentiating subject matter to reach all the learning levels of an inclusion/SPED class. True/False: Suspending an ADHD child for throwing chairs violates his/her student’s rights under FAPE, ADA, and IDEA.
 * Background:**
 * Rationale:**
 * Implication to teaching:**
 * Question:**

FALSE